§ Kate HoeyI beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 127, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
'(5) Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—
- (a) any recommendations made to him by the Metropolitan Police Authority; and
- (b) any representations made to him by the Mayor.'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 147 to 149.
Government new clause 47—Appointment and removal of commanders
Government new clause 48—Other members of the Metropolitan Police Force.
Government amendment No. 150.
§ Kate HoeyThis group of amendments is concerned primarily with the appointment of Metropolitan police officers. There are also provisions on the removal of Metropolitan officers, and some miscellaneous matters.
I should like to speak first to amendments Nos. 146 and 147, which deal with appointment of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As I informed the Committee when we were debating the Bill's current provisions, it has always been our intention that the Metropolitan police authority shall have a role in the appointment of those two officers. Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 fulfil the commitment that I gave to the Committee that we should table amendments enshrining the MPA's role in the Bill. 819 Amendment No. 146 deals with the appointment of the commissioner. It provides that, before the Secretary of State makes his recommendation to Her Majesty, he shall have regard to any recommendations from the MPA and any representations from the mayor.
Amendment No. 147 makes equivalent provision for the appointment of the deputy commissioner—except that the commissioner, rather than the mayor, will have the right to make representations.
The amendments give the MPA an important role in the appointment process. They are consistent with our policy of giving the MPA, so far as possible, the same powers and duties as those held by police authorities outside London. They also take account of recommendation 6 of the Macpherson report, on the appointment of chief officers of the Metropolitan police.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that the posts of commissioner and deputy commissioner are special ones. They head the capital's police force, which is the largest force in the country—20 per cent. of all police in England and Wales are in the Met—and performs a range of national and international functions far greater than those of police forces outside London.
Given the importance of the posts and the continuing responsibilities that the Home Secretary will have for the national and international functions of the Met, it would be wrong for the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner to mirror exactly the appointment of chief constables. Our amendments reflect that. The appointments will remain royal ones and the Home Secretary will have the responsibility of making the recommendation to the Queen.
The precise arrangements for handling the appointments will be decided later, taking account as necessary of the outcome of the working group on leadership, which is currently considering the selection, training and support of senior police officers. We envisage the MPA identifying a few preferred candidates—probably between two and four—and submitting details and recommendations to the Home Secretary. He would then make his recommendation to Her Majesty having regard to that list and any representations made by the mayor.
We believe that the amendments strike the right balance. Through the MPA and the mayor, they will give Londoners a say in who will lead the capital's police service, while recognising the distinct nature of the appointments and the need for the Home Secretary to play a more active role than he does in chief constable appointments.
New clause 47 makes provision for the appointment and removal of commanders, similar to clause 238 in respect of assistant commissioners. It gives the MPA the same role in their appointment and removal as police authorities outside London have in respect of assistant chief constables, to whom commanders are regarded as equivalent in rank. The MPA will be able to appoint commanders or call on them to retire, subject in both cases to the approval of the Home Secretary. That is consistent with the general policy of the Bill that the powers and duties of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of police authorities outside London. It is also consistent with Macpherson recommendation 6.
820 Amendment No. 149 is related to the new clause. Paragraph 84 of schedule 22 provides that the Home Secretary may require the MPA to exercise its power to call on the commissioner, deputy commissioner or an assistant commissioner to retire, but before the Home Secretary does so, or approves a request by the MPA to sanction such a removal, the individual in question has a right to make representations to the Home Secretary. Now that we have made specific provision in the Bill for the arrangements governing the removal of commanders, we wish to apply the provisions of that paragraph to them as well as to the three commissioner ranks. Amendment No. 149 achieves that. For the sake of clarity, it also lists the four senior Met officer ranks to which the paragraph now applies.
New clause 48 is concerned with the remaining ranks of the Met. It lists those ranks below commander that may be held in the Met—superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. It also provides that their appointment and promotion are to be made by the commissioner in accordance with regulations under section 50 of the Police Act 1996. The new clause mirrors the provision made for forces outside London by section 13 of the 1996 Act. In effect, it replaces sections 4 and 5 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829, which provide the current basis for appointing all Met ranks below that of assistant commissioner to be repealed by the Bill. That is another example of the Bill aligning arrangements in the Met with arrangements elsewhere.
Amendment No. 148 is also purely technical. It removes a reference in section 1(3) of the 1996 Act, which will no longer be required once the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district are redrawn to bring them into line with the outer boundary of Greater London. Provision for changing the MPD boundary is contained in clause 239. We intend that those changes will take place on 1 April 2000.
The amendments and new clauses set the right legislative framework for the appointment and removal of officers in the Met. They are a positive step forward in the policing of London, and I commend them to the House.
§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to proceedings on the Bill in relation to the Metropolitan police. These are important amendments because we need there to be public confidence in the Greater London Authority and in the Metropolitan police authority which the Bill creates. There must be confidence in and support for the leadership of the commissioner, his deputy and senior officers. Equally, there must be a structure to ensure that those important appointments are not subject to unnecessary political interference. On the whole, the way in which the Bill will be structured if the amendments are passed strikes the right balance.
The importance of leadership in the Metropolitan police has been debated recently. We have exchanged views in the House about the Macpherson report, to which the Minister referred; particularly its sixth recommendation. Following the publication of the report, some called for the commissioner to resign. The general view in the House was that that would have been a retrograde step. The House sought to strike a balance between an acceptance that some criticism was valid—that the police had made mistakes and were willing to accept that, in some respects, leadership may have been lacking—and a 821 reaffirmation that the police service in London was one in which the people of London and the country as a whole could take justifiable pride.
No one could have anticipated the circumstances of the past two or three weeks, and the extent to which those events have enabled the police to show how professional, resilient and courageous they are. All of us would rather that that professionalism and leadership could have been displayed without so many lives being ruined by the bombs in Brixton, east London and Soho—a part of London that I used to police all those years ago.
The House must reflect that such is the nature of policing: it will always be like that. The tragedies, the unforeseen incidents and the terrorism in London over the past 10 or 20 years—including some high-profile, almost catastrophic incidents—have been where the importance of the leadership of the Metropolitan police has been most evident. I should like to place on record tonight our overwhelming support for and tributes to the work of Metropolitan police officers in recent days.
I have been with the commissioner and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) at a police and parliamentary scheme dinner in the other place. It would be fair to reflect that everyone supported what the police have achieved. We must ensure that the arrangements for the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner reflect the importance of the job that they do.
10.45 pm
I know that the Government have thought long and hard about how the appointments should be structured. There was a desire to ensure that the arrangements for the police authority should reflect the Police Act 1996 provisions while acknowledging that London is a special case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) pressed that point in Committee. The events of the past two or three weeks are a stark reminder of that.
How can one ensure that those who have a valid contribution to make in the appointment process for the commissioner and the deputy—who will from time to time perform the functions of the commissioner and may later go on to become commissioner—can have that opportunity, while maintaining the final say in the right place?
In other forces, the police authority effectively chooses the chief constable and the Home Secretary approves. The amendments would set up a system that is better for London, whereby, effectively, the Home Secretary recommends to Her Majesty and she appoints—the public will have more confidence in that, given the special nature of London—but there is a mechanism for the police authority to make recommendations. The emphasis is different.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster did a noble job of speaking for the Opposition on these matters in Committee. In preparation, he and I cast our eye carefully over the relevant clauses to ensure that the balance was right. The one glaring deficiency was that there was no mechanism for the police authority to be consulted. I have read the Hansard report, and I am glad that the Minister said not that there had been an oversight but that the Government intended to deliver such a mechanism. The time spent in finding the 822 right form of words has been well spent. We are comfortable with the provisions as they will stand under amendments Nos. 146 and 147.
The provisions of the Police Act 1996 are relatively recent. We are glad that the Government have decided to replicate those provisions. Such early confirmation of them is welcome. The Minister may smile, but it is important that, as far as possible, there should be cross-party agreement on such matters, given the seriousness and importance of what we are trying to achieve. That is equally true for the arrangements under which commissioners and senior rank officers, in any police force, could potentially be required to retire, but it is especially true for the four Association of Chief Police Officers ranks in the Metropolitan police, from commissioner down to commander.
It is important that the House understands how the mechanisms work. While it is right to make a different case for London for the appointment of commissioner and deputy commissioner, it is probably fair that the mechanisms for their removal are the same as those elsewhere. For reasons that I shall explain in a moment, that will give some added protection.
Under section 11 of the Police Act, the police authority can ask a chief officer to go, but it requires the Home Secretary's approval, and he can say no. Under section 42, the Home Secretary can require a police authority to exercise its section 11 powers. That is a valuable reassurance for London, because if the power lies in the hands of the Home Secretary rather than the police authority, it underpins significantly the operational independence of the chief officer of police—in this case, the commissioner or his deputy. It also minimises the risk of any politically motivated witch hunt against such a senior officer.
The events of the past few weeks graphically illustrate the importance of ensuring that the structure is as it appears in the Bill. It also makes sense to ensure, as in Government amendment No. 149, that assistant commissioners and commanders are treated the same, because a commander is of equal rank to a chief constable. Indeed, many commanders go on to become chief constables. They are ACPO rank officers and should have special arrangements.
When I read Government new clause 47, I was surprised that we had not realised earlier that the Bill contained nothing about the appointment of commanders, who have an important role in the Metropolitan police. It is important for the House to note that a commander may not exercise the powers of commissioner, and that justifies the police authority appointing commanders, rather than the Home Secretary being required to do so.
We welcome the spelling out in Government new clause 48 of the ranks that will be maintained in the Metropolitan police. It is worth confirming that those ranks will continue. Of course, the chief superintendent rank was abolished in the aftermath of the Sheehy recommendations. There is some concern among serving police officers that as we move to a flatter management style—the Minister knows that we have discussed the issue before in police debates—the opportunities for promotion and advancement are reduced. I hope that the police service in London will be reassured by the inclusion in the Bill of the retention of those ranks. The continuing drive for greater efficiency in the police 823 service has meant that the shake-out of officers at senior ranks has led to fewer police officers overall in London, but there are more constables. There certainly were more constables when the previous Government left office, as I shall go on repeating at every opportunity.
As the Minister said, the remaining two amendments are entirely technical. They seem to be in order, in terms of the Police Act 1996.
I am glad to have had the chance to say a few words about the matter, as the creation of a police authority for London is an historic step. As we heard earlier, the political argument about it has gone on for years. Conservative Members have endeavoured to take a constructive approach, and the Bill's structure is as good now as it is likely to be. I know how much the commissioner is looking forward to having the support of the police authority. We wish the authority all success in its work of supporting the police in London.
§ Mr. Simon HughesAs has been stated, this short debate is effectively the only one that will be held on the police in London. I have only a couple of remarks to make but, like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I shall preface them by repeating what I said in Committee: all of us owe much affection and gratitude to the police officers who serve us every day.
The events of the past three weeks remind us of that. The first incident took place in Brixton, in the Minister's constituency, and was followed by bombs in Brick lane and Soho. All hon. Members have constituents and friends who visit those parts of the city regularly, as we do ourselves. I was invited to visit the Brick lane community the morning after the incident there, and the people I met were clearly very grateful for the regular service that the police provided. If the person who has been arrested and charged is found, by due process of law, to be guilty of the offences, that will be a further tribute to the speed of the police's detection and intelligence processes. It shows how quickly the police can act to deal with people who put at risk civil liberty and peace.
I do not want to repeat the debate in Standing Committee about the differences between the Metropolitan police and the other services. However, the Minister referred to one other recent event, the Liberal Democrat interpretation of which differs from hers. The report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, which has been debated in this House, referred to the way in which policing in London should be organised. We believe that police appointments in London should be made in a way that reflects the pattern of the other police services in England and Wales.
The Minister did not claim that the Government were implementing exactly the recommendations of the Lawrence report. She claimed—fairly, I think—that the Government's recommendations reflected the report. We acknowledge that and, although we think that the report wanted the Government to go further, that argument is for later. However, I accept that Government amendments No. 146 and 147 show that the Government have taken on board the point made in Standing Committee that the Metropolitan police authority and the mayor should play a part in the appointments of the commissioner—London's senior police officer—and of the deputy commissioner.
Liberal Democrat Members may differ with the Minister about whether the commissioner should be a royal appointment or a police authority appointment but, 824 given that the Government want the appointment to be made by the monarch, we are grateful for the wider process of deliberation and consultation that will be undertaken before it is made.
11 pm
As the Minister said, amendment No. 148 is technical. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale, I had not spotted that we had not covered commanders in considering the senior officers and ensuring that there was a provision comparable to that pertaining to other police forces for their appointment and removal. I accept that the rank of commander is appropriate for inclusion in the provision. I was intrigued to learn—my homework had not gone so far—that new clause 48 amends in its wake an Act of about 1825, which was not long after the creation of the Metropolitan police. No doubt we will reach that repeal in the consequential amendments. It is in any case a logical amendment.
Given the Government's position on who should be charged with the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner, and their decision that the system should be different from that elsewhere, the amendment improves things by involving more people, and the Metropolitan police authority, in the process: it tidies what was left untidy. To that extent, this group of amendments is welcome.
§ Mr. BrookeThe House understood why we did not have a statement this afternoon on the recent bombs and the charges laid by the Metropolitan police. Apart from anything else, that has given us more time to make progress on the Bill. However, it meant that there was no opportunity to pay tribute to the Metropolitan police for the remarkable speed of the detection that led to the charges. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, if they are confirmed by the courts, it will have been a triumph. The third bombing occurred in my constituency, but it was the events in Brixton and Brick lane before the Soho bomb that led to the case. I apologise if I err in terms of sub judice, but I wanted to put my commendation on record.
§ Kate HoeyI thank hon. Members for their support for the police and the amendments. In the past few weeks, we have seen the Metropolitan police at their best. We are very grateful for their work. We all hope that recent events will not be repeated. Where those terrible events have happened, our communities have made a united and determined attempt to pull together to fight against racism. It has brought communities together, certainly in my area.
This is an important moment for policing in London. We are moving forward with all-party support to the setting up of the Metropolitan police authority. I think that we have got the balance right. This was difficult, but important to achieve. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the people of London need to have confidence in the police, in the leadership of the police, and in the balance between their capital, national functions and their ordinary policing functions. I welcome hon. Members' support.
§ Amendment agreed to.